Letter 17: Closing thoughts on Afghanistan

This is the last letter and it is late in coming. “Lo siento” as my new host countrymen would say. There are three topics that I would like to address:

1. the wiki-leaks doc-dump of 91,000 secret documents on the Afghan war;

2. Mr Tony Hodgin’s – Choate History Teacher’s – discussion via e-mail on the culture of the U.S. Army in which American soldiers are willing to fight and die for people they do not always like and view the cohesion required for combat as a singular value; and,

3. my bailing on USAID in favor of the Peace Corps.

WIKI-SQUEAKS
BLUF: What is the big deal about leaks? They balance out the over-use of classification.

First, is a discussion point raised by Liz Seacord’s mother, a lovely and formidable woman with a sharp mind and clear conviction. Mrs Seacord was interested in my views on the wiki-leaks case. Truth-be-told: I am not really in a position to discuss this question meaningfully for two reasons. First, I have done very little reading on the subject and, second, I cannot seem to access the files themselves (if only to scratch the surface of some 200,000 pages of material).

In that very narrow view, I can say that the summary articles that I read at the time did not reveal anything that was not already accessible from very public sources. I heard General Petraeus state that the identities of some host country military intelligence assets had been compromised. Additionally, I read a New York Times article, while in the Adirondacks, that portrayed the leaker as a neurotic homosexual bent on gaining attention.

There is an obvious question: ¿Would the Army ever have put someone of this young man’s alleged disposition into a sensitive position? The following passage from the wiki-leaks page gainsays, at least in part, the sentiments portrayed by General Petraeus, a genuinely honest man and among the best America can produce. “We have delayed the release of some 15,000 reports from the total archive as part of a harm minimization process demanded by our source. After further review, these reports will be released, with occasional redactions, and eventually in full, as the security situation in Afghanistan permits.”

All that said, there has to be some license given to conscience with respect to disclosure of classified information. Popular accountability under a democracy relies upon it. That is to say: intention matters. In reviewing this soldier’s intentions, I believe that those who sit in judgement of this young man have to take the higher-order reasons into account, and not become diverted by the sensational as amplified in the media about the protagonist’s sexual preferences (implied as quirks) or personality profile. I believe we need also to keep things in perspective: secret information simply is not a big deal.

The dissemination of the U.S.A.’s nuclear secrets in the middle of the last century was likely the single largest act of treason ever in U.S. history. What ultimate harm came from that far more disloyal act? The world moved on and likely became a safer place. (The Secretary of State at the time had been loudly advocating the use of tactical nuclear weapons to bail out France in Indo-China.)

These 200,000 pages do not begin to approach this treason. These are after-action reports and do not tip-off the reader to actionable information to harm our younger brothers and sisters in uniform (and their brave Afghan counterparts).

While intentions count – and can over-ride normal tendencies toward retributive justice – they are not paramount. Safety of U.S. military personnel and local Afghan partners count for more. The question remains: ¿Is the young man a hero for blowing the whistle on a failing war or suited to rot in prison for betraying his country? Time and the Uniform Code of Military Justice – yes, this court system is fair – will make that determination.

The question pre-supposing any other remains open: ¿Did this U.S. soldier release names of specific people, thus endangering them? If so, he committed treason. If not, give him, at worst, a dishonorable discharge and move on. It is as likely that this leak will save lives by curtailing a failing counter-insurgency as it is to lose lives by revealing identities. Time and legal discovery will tell.

TONY HODGIN’s E-MAIL
BLUF: Cohesion of the active duty military unit leaves its imprimatur.

Tony was one of the more popular teachers at Choate and was well known for his service in the Peace Corps. Though I never had the honor of taking one of Tony’s courses, his status as a Peace Corps volunteer – not to mention the school’s most famous alumnus being the initiator of it (Cuerpo de Paz in Mexico) – may have planted the seeds leading up to this decision.

Tony was writing me about the newly released book, ‘War’ by Sebastian Junger. In his note to me Tony stated, “Why do guys want to come back to the war zone time and again and miss it so much when back home? Why do they risk and sometimes give their lives to save fellows they don't particularly like?”

Again, as was the case with Mrs Seacord, I am going to be a weenie and say that I do not know. When I have worked with National Guard units, the cohesion is strong but not rigid, allowing my fuller participation. When I have served with active duty units, I have always felt like an outsider looking in.

My efforts to insinuate myself into the group resembled a moth trying to eat his way through chain-mail. Theoretically, it’s possible but unlikely. That is to say: group cohesion runs very high. My experience reflects no criticism of our armed forces, especially those men and women serving in active duty.

The fact of the matter is that this cohesion has strengthened with the onset of the professional army over the past thirty-five years and will most likely continue. This cohesion saves U.S. lives in combat situation by enabling tightly coordinated field tactics. It allows the foot soldiers to spread out in dangerous fields to reach down to the local communities.

The criticism that a certain myopia and rigidness may set in due to the ambitions of senior field grade officers pushing for results is valid. Another difficulty with active duty units remains the lack of genuine internal communication between companies, with other units or government players to integrate the unexpected.

All that said, however, a combination of an extended line of communication (i.e., the reach of U.S. forces); the “battle rhythm” (i.e., how the U.S. Army does business); and, the day-to-day courage of our youngest and best enable U.S. Army and Marines in Afghanistan to be the only source of development actually reaching the people quickly and consistently.

Much of it is proving to be marginallyeffective whilw much is critically successful. Again, read this response to Tony with a grain of salt since I would never ‘blend’ in the Army and since I was in the North of Afghanistan and not a kinetic area.

THE SWITCH
BLUF: Better late than never, mios amigos.

This answer is short. I had stated in my college applications in excess of thirty years ago that my first ambition was to serve in the Peace Corps. Well it took long enough. The reason for walking out on a great job is because I think Afghanistan is crumbling; worse yet, it is wrecking USAID with excess funding amounts corrupting the development structure of “implementing partners” and undermining due-diligence. So, coward that I am, I did not want to live through the institutional crisis dead-ahead to USAID. Secondly, the Peace Corps will make a true professional of me in development…or so I hope.